Talk:David DeAngelo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] What do women think?

I was wondering if anyone might know what most women believe in regards to DeAngelo's techniques. Do they feel as if they are being manipulated? Do they not know or perhaps not even care? It might be interested in hearing the female perspective. --Quintin3265 19:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • If you want to know what a particular woman thinks, why not ask her? Most of them will laugh and say the verbal sparring David suggests is fun. The idea is not to manipulate them, it's to have a good time with them. If you want an example of something that feels more like manipulation and less like fun, check out "Speed Seduction" (yuck!). -- Gravix 09:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This is on the talk page, so it doesn't matter so much. But that is most certainly a pov comment (as you are probably aware of anyway). And more so, some people feel the opposite way to you. That the general principles of speed seduction are more realistic while DeAngelo is all icky... Mathmo 13:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Back on topic: As a women, I find Dave DeAngelo's basic ideas are good. His foundation is based on building better man - which in turn will help lead them to a successful and satisfying dating life. I totally support and am attracted to that concept. What I am not crazy about are some of his methods on "picking up chicks" I think Cocky Funny goes only so far. -- 67.99.99.144 14:00, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree. I've "picked and choosed" among his ideas, like you did. I think it's a good idea to improve yourself, but at one point he suggested that people walk into a room as if they own the place. Such arrogance seems like you're undoing all the positive changes you've made to yourself. --Quintin3265 14:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Women's perspective

I should let you wrap with my girlfriend. She knows all about the program; loves everything about it. -- Barrettmagic 15:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Can't see anything on that page. Mathmo 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Many women react very negatively toward the "cocky & funny" tactic as DeAngelo's students practice it. Cocky & funny is the technique that DeAngelo is best known for. There is a great deal of controversy in the Seduction Community about the teaching this particular technique. DutchSeduction 11:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's only supposed to "work" on women who are *very* attractive. Since they (theoretically) get bored of "boring" men who try to pick them up all the time.
    • IMO, if a girl reacts angrily to being lightly teased she is excessively insecure/lacks a sense of humor. I strongly disagree with the unsigned comment directly above--C&F is a way to be entertaining and have fun, not a "technique" that is supposed to "work" on somebody. Think about the way you tease your best guy friends, calling them dork and dumbass when they do something stupid and picking on their insecurities, but always in good humor. C&F is exactly that, except with everyone and not just your good friends. -- Gravix 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Yup, a lot of these "seduction methods" are simply telling you to just be as friendly and natural towards girls as you are already with your male friends (just try extending it to the other half of the world). Mathmo 13:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

Surprised this page hasn't been nominated for deletion, as it is entirely self-promotional. DeAngelo is not the founder of the Seduction Community. The external links section is a spam farm, and most of the sites there should be removed.

  • Shouldn't there be a snippet telling about pseudoscientific methods such as NLP, Doctor paul's stuff, hypnosis etc? Because it seems that the only criticism goes towards the ends, and not the means (some of which are quite non-scientific etc).
    • I think the reason there isn't much about those things there is because most people probably don't know that much about those methods. His mass-market media (DVDs and books) don't touch that much on NLP or hypnosis, or even mention that he doesn't use them anymore. Be bold and add something if you're knowledgable about them. --Quintin3265 15:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
    • See the "Deep Inner Game" program for something based almost entirely on pseudoscience. In stark contrast to the other DYD programs I have viewed, "Deep Inner Game" is a bunch of bizarre theoretical nonsense that "Dr Paul" created to sell his own self-help DVD series. Which is, of course, heavily plugged in the program. I find the man himself to be rather lame, with a high-pitched squeaky laugh and effeminate mannerisms. -- Gravix 19:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eban Pagan

Cite a source for this, otherwise it goes.--Isotope23 15:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where this came from, although it's clear that DeAngelo is a psuedonymn. Until someone can figure out his real name, I'll replace it with generic text. --Quintin3265 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was originally reported in Cliff's List]. In any case, this article is badly written, and should be deleted.

This clip clearly shows David Deangelo at a Ross Jeffries seminar, and RJ refers to him as "Dr. Pagan". From this it seems likely that his first name is as originally reported.195.5.76.116 12:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thehowtomadeeasydating.com/dating-gurus/david-deangelo.htm This website says the Eben Pagan is David DeAngelo's real name. I didn't want to cite it in the article, because it is a commericial website.

Where did you see "Eben Pagan" on that site? I looked a bit but I couldn't find it. Could you provide a more specific URL? --Gravix 02:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


Re "Eben Pagan", check out the references in this resume and this one.

[edit] David D/ Chris C

Check this out David Deangelo also writes material for women under the name Chris Carter. He teaches what seems to be the same basic aproach he teaches men. One thing very interesting is the fact that he tells the women in his marketing pitch, that he never had a problem dating lots of women. Pitching to the men he states that he was loser when it came to women.

That is FALSE. Did you just make that up? Because if you read his newsletters it would be clear to you that that isn't true in the least. Here is a direct quote from Christian Carter's newsletter titled "The 10 Love Mistakes Women Make With Men..."

"Some women will continue to put up with a guy that doesn't treat them very well. Sometimes for months or years... But why in the world would a woman do that!? Well, to put it simply, they confuse the strong attraction they feel for the guy with a deeper "connection". Women who do this are doomed to end up in failed relationships with the "wrong" guys. How do I know? Because I've seen it at least a hundred times... And because I've been this guy in the past myself. Thinking back on past dating and relationships I've had, I was selfish and didn't offer much. I'm amazed the women put up with me. But they did...all the while hoping that I would somehow change. The women I dated hoped I'd change. The only thing they saw in me that led them to want to keep me around was the "potential" they saw in me to share my feelings and communicate with them. The potential for something better and the potential for me to change and be a better lover, boyfriend, companion or whatever... The truth was, I was hopelessly bad at these things at the time. And more importantly, I wasn't even at a place in my life where I knew how to or was interested in developing a deep and committed relationship - with ANYONE."

True, Mr Pagan sells an eBook aimed at women (called "Catch Him and Keep Him"). However, it is not clear whether the book was written by him or a colleague.

jamiemcc 00:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I emailed Catch Him and Keep Him (Chris Carter's product) and they replied that David Deangelo is close friends with CC and have been working together for some time.

I've read both ebooks and the writing styles are different (although they have a few idosyncracies in common). With the discrepancy mentioned above, it seems obvious that they are two different people.

I will delete the section on Chris Carter for clarity. Gubby 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

David D (or Eban if you like) talks a bit about "alliteration marketing" in his advanced series seminar, mentioning that he chose "Double Your Dating" because of the D's. Obviously he chose his pseudonym with both D's for that reason as well. Note all the C's in "Catch Him And Keep Him, Chris Carter" (K in keep is not a C but it is the same sound). If it is not the same person they at least have a very similar design philosophy. --Gravix 02:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted comments

I deleted some anonymous comments here. Next time, please sign your comments and cite your sources. --Quintin3265 02:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Dispute

What exactly is the NPOV dispute with this article? Someone tagged the page but never explained why. There were a few questions about the article being in favor of DeAngelo a few months ago, but I had thought those problems were ironed out.

--Quintin3265 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

An example of what I find to be NPOV in this article:

  • Neither Jeffries nor DeAngelo are considered by those in the seduction community to be the best pickup artists by seduction community standards. Both of them have developed reputations for how they have aggressively promoted their ideas online.

I'm also not happy with the excessive amount of weasel language in this article. Also, shouldn't there be some biographical information here, since this article is about the man, not his business? --Ryan Delaney talk 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is where you're wrong. The article is about David DeAngelo, which is a pseudonym only related to Double Your Dating. If we had an Eban Pagan article... -Iopq 12:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Some statements in the criticisms section are over-emphasized. I changed the following quote:

"A very common criticism is that his "cocky & funny" technique often backfires and can be easily interpreted as arrogant, insecure and phony and actually harms a guy's chances with women"

The external link was to an internet forum so I felt the words "very common" should be removed and that "often" should be replaced by "may."

I also noted the following:

"It is worth noting that while DeAngelo's marketing is aimed almost entirely at men, he has suggested in newsletters that many of his techniques work for women as well."

It is also worth noting that because of DeAngelo's esoteric marketing scheme, these newsletters are by email and I have no direct link --Carter James

[edit] Fire your wedding planner

www.fireyourweddingplanner.com/

it's written by Eban Pagan aka David De Angelo aka Stephi Stewarts (?) -Iopq 09:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See above. He sells the book. Can we prove that he wrote it? If so, we should update the main entry with a link to the evidence.jamiemcc 00:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a little research shows a lot

Here's something interesting. Go Daddy shows www.catchhimandkeephim.com/ as registered to Administrative Contact: Carter, Christian operations@daviddeangelo.com

Looks like he's teaching both sides now. Also note the similarity in web design between www.catchhimandkeephim.com and www.doubleyourdating.com/ I think they're even using the same font! -Anonymous

Both newsletters have the same writing style indicating the same author. But guess what, the DyD newsletter is resending out previous letters (word for word). Did it run out of material? 203.218.141.233 12:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps he just considers such newsletters important enough for new readers that he reprints them?
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 18:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The mails are just one part of his multi-tiered marketing operation. They are written to give the impression that he just sat down to write them that weekend, but in reality most of them have been around for years. There used to be an archive on fastseduction.com of some of the earliest ones, and they have been recycled many, many times. They are just shuffled out of a database every week by an automated listserv. I do not really recommend the site for reasons enumerated below... commercial interests poison things quickly. -- Gravix 02:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Sasuke, how much is Eben/DeAngelo paying you to clean up his wikipedia page? LOL. DutchSeduction

[edit] Neutrality banner

Most of this stuff is factually incorrect or distorted. Someone here is trying to smear this guy. "Double your dating website (mostly ads)" -- there are NO ads on doubleyourdating.com. If you're going to post so much criticism you need to post the counter-criticism. I'm going to put a neutrality banner up.

Gubby 13:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the 'ads' comment. Where else? I can't see any other real criticism. Please be more specific and add more examples. I'm removing the banner until you do.

WoodenBuddha 14:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys are funny. Double Your Dating website is just a marketing site for DeAngelo's products. It IS an ad!! DutchSeduction

WoodenBuddha, The criticism from DutchSeduction.com is a nonprofit organization, probably the only such neutral critical reference in an otherwise heavily adcrufted page. Stop whining that others are trying to smear the guy. He's a well-respected market-leader in the seduction field. Some healthy criticism from neutral sources isn't going to hurt him, and it's only going to improve this page.

[edit] Linking to fastseduction.com

I'm not associated with fastseduction.com, but seriously, nobody read the old asf - and everyone reads the fastseduction one (known in the community as mASF). The links we provide are surely meant to be useful for people who want to find ut more information - in this case, the link provided is the better. Please msg me if you want further justificatin here - I realise the link is to a commercial site, but this commercial site really is, as it claims, the center of the seduction universe ;-)

--

COMMENT: It should be noted that fastseduction.com is a commercial website, that DYD is an affiliate of that website, and that the ASF group on USENET works JUST FINE. Unlike commercial websites, USENET groups are totally neutral and cannot be censored. The fastseduction.com website has message boards that are patterned after the original ASF, but it is NOT the original ASF at all, but one of dozens of internet fora devoted to this topic.

--

Please sign your comments! DYD is an affiliate of that website, as is pretty much every commercial outfit. The ASF group on USENET works fine, except for the fact that it's 99% spam, and no-one in the community uses it. I'm quite aware of what USENET groups are. The FS.com site, if you look a little deeper, is used by everyone who's notable in the community - Neil Strauss (posted as Style), who wrote the Game. Mystery. Ross Jeffries (posts as sandworm@attbi.com). Tyler Durden. The old alt.seduction.fast group is of absolutely NO USE to anyone, other than to note that all the people who used to use it switched enmasse to the fastseduction site. This is well documented elsewhere, and if you were a member of the community, you'd know this.

WoodenBuddha 16:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to add to this. You say how it's "but one of dozens of internet fora devoted to this topic". That's true. The difference, and the reason it's important, is because it's the only one to which all the top PUAs have or used to post. It's that simple - no other forum even comes close. Who do I mean by top PUAs? Well, anyone who's had a newspaper write up about them. There are /no/ other forums in which this is the case - none even come close in that measure. I'd like to reiterate that anyone who's been in the community any length of time would know this - to an outsider, I guess, it seems strange that there's one board that's fixated on.

WoodenBuddha 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

WoodenBuddha is correct. Inasmuch as there is a "seduction community", the message boards at fastseduction.com are where they talk. As long as you don't disagree with the mission of the group (posting things like "seduction is wrong", etc), troll, or act like a moron, you will not be censored. I am not sure how you can have a serious discussion on this topic without moderation as the influx of "WIN HER LOVE NOW WITH PHEROMONES"-type spam is quick and merciless. At least in the current setup the paid advertisments and the discussion are kept mostly separate. That's not to say the discussion isn't full of people giving testimonials who may actually be the same people selling the products, but I don't know what you can do about that problem. Gravix 03:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

I've changed to the meta:Cite.php version, which looks awful right now but clearly shows the source of the information. More fixing to come. - brenneman{L} 02:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality tag

I've tagged the article, due to certain key areas:

  • 'Protection Shield' section - this section seems critically biased against the concept mentioned, or at least doesn't examine it enough from an angle in favour of the concept.
  • "While most of DeAngelo's infomation is generally considered useful, it is argued that DeAngelo does not give a complete seduction system in any one of his products. Each product is only one part of a complete system, which DeAngelo invites customers to invest in." (from Criticism). To me, this seems common practice in this sort of field, especially when the author/creator is trying to make a living from their materials.
  • "Many in the community claim that DeAngelo is not known as a great seducer himself, but more of a promoter and marketeer." (again, from Criticism). Who does? Where do they do so? It also seems to me that David DeAngelo doesn't go into the 'seduction scene' as deeply as others do (I'm assuming that it is members of the 'seduction community' that are making this claim). Neil strauss implies it in "the game"
    • Someone who is interested could do some digging into Thundercat's blog archives. I remember reading about this controversey a few years back. Basically it stemmed from the fact that no one had ever seen David "in the field" picking up chicks. It's common for guys to go out together after meetings and seminars to sarge (sarge means pick up chicks), and it seems David never did this and had never been in a position to have his "skills" actually verified in the real world. Some said that this is beacause going out specifically to meet women is not his style. However, since there are a lot of (pardon the term) bulls***ers out there, some people are more confident in someone and their techniques when they can demonstrate them in a real-life setting. I don't know if there is any merit to these statements or not, but it has been discussed. Gravix 03:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The quote from David DeAngelo (once again, from Criticism) is not cited.

Not a great deal, I'm sure you'll agree, but it can make the difference in an article of such length.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 17:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

A couple more :

  • "These bloggers often rail against women who disapprove of his advice." (from Support). The blog post linked doesn't 'rail' against women. As far as I can see, it answers the objections raised by women in a fairly objective and reasonable manner.
  • "In particular, DeAngelo's aggressive marketing style has left relatively few objective information sources that refer to him critically." (from Criticism). I don't see how his marketing style can be described as 'aggressive'. As far as I've seen, he relies on word-of-mouth for promotion, and then he just uses a newsletter roughly every other day, containing mostly e-mails relating to the system he encourages (which give out information for free), and a catalogue of his products. True, he goes rather 'salesman' at some points, but it seems rather common in such online promotions (where there's no physical rapport to play off). Quick Google searches for 'dating' and 'seduction' reveal no sponsored links of his. I'd say it's pretty low-key compared to some that I've seen.
    -- Sasuke Sarutobi 03:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Sasuke's comments above appear to be highly biased. DeAngelo employs a staff of internet marketeers to pepper sites, blogs, forums with DeAngelo friendly comments like Sasuke's. DeAngelo is not widely known among commercial PUAs as a great seducer himself. Ask them yourself and you'll see. DutchSeduction
    • I agree. I'm going to remove this neutrality tag. If someone other than Sasuke re-adds it, I won't object. --Quintin3265 13:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
DutchSeduction, your ad hominem tu quoque attacks are laughable. Granted, I have read David DeAngelo's works, both in ebook and mailing list form. This I will admit. I also have criticisms of his works, as any freethinking mind likely will with any human works. These will be added in good stead.
Your inference that I am employed by him, however, is deplorable. Even if it were not for the fact that you are named after the very website you are 'objectively promoting' , you have also made no contributions other than to those relating to the seduction community, and have proven from the outset that you have your own agenda. In my opinion, you have disregarded ethics to re-inforce your ethos.
This is my only rant about you here. Any further comments will be directed to your talk page.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 23:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sasuke appears to be pretty objective to me. The desire for citations and clarification is standard wikipedia fare, and this article would be improved with revision in that direction. I am not sure how David's notoriety as a seducer in the commercial PUA community is relevant. Gravix 04:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sanitization?

Sanitization. It looks like a number of DeAngelo's boyfans and internet marketeers are working hard to "sanitize" the page. Maybe they think it will sell more DeAngelo products, but that is a misuse of Wikipedia. More negative comments and criticism should be welcome on the page. Even widely reported controversy like the rift between DeAngelo and Jeffries, might as well remain on the page in the interest of objectivity. Stop censoring on Wikipedia. DutchSeduction

DutchSeduction, you don't seem very neutral yourself. It's okay to try to fight back against fanboys and so on, but most of the people you are hollering against are quite reasonable.

Gubby 11:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to Dutch Seduction

Nowhere on the Dutch Seduction site is David DeAngelo mentioned. Nowhere is 'Cocky and Playful' mentioned. Googling '"Cocky and Playful" dutch seduction' gives two hits, neither related to the dutch seduction site. This is clear spamming. Stop. Now.

WoodenBuddha 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there was a Cocky and Playful idea (C&P) being thrown around by Mystery and TylerDurden for a while on mASF. I've not sure if this is related to what DutchSeduction is talking about though. I've never heard of "Playful and Confident" or "Confident and Playful" on mASF. But I've heard of similar criticisms of C&F/DeAngelo, and similar attempts to find alternatives to C&F (for instance, Dimitri suggested "Confident and Witty"). --SecondSight 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

A nonprofit site being censored by Mr. DeAngelo's internet marketeers?

WoodenBuddha, this is santization of fair criticism to Mr. DeAngelo. Sign up for the site, and you'll see "Confident & Playful" and extensive criticism of DeAngelo's theories. The man is respected for his contributions and fairly criticized when they fall short. You are playing censor. Stop censoring and sanitizing. There are too many DeAngelo fan-boys out there. Stop censoring Wikipedia! DutchSeduction

DutchSeduction - please edit this page in such a way that it's obvious when and where you've made changes, rather than adding in random pieces of text.

a) Your site does not contain criticism of DYD unless a user signs up. Even then, this is in no way the main focus of the site. b) You run the website, and run Google Ads on it - stop using the Wikipedia for profit c) Stop categorizing someone opposed to your spamming as working for the opposition d) The "Confident And Playful" phrase you mention as being the main focus of the objections is virtually unknown in the community. Please stop mischaracterising it

If you can link to non-signup pages on your site containing fair and balanced criticism on DYD, go for it. At the moment, you link to a general message board that you run. Not good enough.

Point 9 in the External_links specifically asks you not to spam your site. SO STOP DOING IT.

WoodenBuddha 12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


WoodenBuddha, you're making a mess of the article, stop the POV censoring and stop removing valid criticism.

a) This is not my site as I do not own or maintain it. It's a nonprofit organization. b) The Google adwords are added by Invisionfree.com, which is a free hosting service. The nonprofit doesn't benefit from them in any way. c) You are santizing the site to censor and remove criticism to DeAngelo's techniques, which is the bias of either a fanboy or an internet marketeer, not in the open spirit of WP. d) "Confident and Playful" is a valid and popular approach in the community, which you are trying to suppress because you don't agree with it. Very POV. Stop trying to commercialize and censor WP. DutchSeduction

WoodenBuddha POV gives the impression that he's one of DeAngelo's meatpuppets or a very biased boy fan. DutchSeduction

I see no problem in linking to the site as a reference, provided it is noted that a (free) user registration is required in order to see the points. I am irritated to see people revert warring and misquoting the various style guides. If the link adds value in the form of a citation for content, claims, criticism, etc. then in my view, it should be allowed to remain.
I can understand the arguments also of those users who claim that the material is invalid because it requires a registration; it can be irritating to have to sign up to a service to see something, especially if it's plausible that that registration could spark unwanted mailing. On the other hand, I would consider it less fair if the site were subscription based.
If the criticism is legitimate, as I suspect it is, then removing it from the article is a violation of both the three-revert rule's spirit, and the neutral point of view policies, and needs to stop. Revert warring is not good
In the event that both contributors are unable to resolve this issue, I suggest filing an article request for comment and allowing an outside opinion to help produce some sort of concensus. Rob Church (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO this is an example of revert warring and attempting to sanitize and censor a reference. The site in question has free registration to prevent commercial spam. WoodenBuddha, please file a Request for comment if you feel strongly about the reference. It's a good and interesting one. Please take a closer look. DutchSeduction

Can you confirm that you do not run the site? If you could / would make your page / pages of criticism freely viewable without registration, and not mention the entirely made-up concept of 'Cocky and Playful' (although I note you've called this 'well established concept' several things over the last few days), I'll happily stop reverting. Perhaps you could select, if they exist, a review or two of David D's products, and put them on a seperate page? The reason I'm currently reverting is I genuinely feel you are simply spamming your website and making a play for more registered users.

WoodenBuddha 17:13, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


Again WoodenBuddha, the site is run by a nonprofit foundation. It is completely noncommercial in every way. The concept of "Playful & confident" has been discussed on that site for about two years or more. Links to sites with free registration is permissable on WP. If you can find another nonprofit example, please include it! DutchSeduction

In the meantime:

WP:AN/3RR Please see comment on the David DeAngelo talk page. The same situation for the LairList debate on Seduction Community. DutchSeduction

The subscription only link is annoying, especially because an admin has to approve you before you can register. Also, I think that specific pages on dutchseduction.com need to be linked to, otherwise anyone looking up the citation will have to (a) register for the site, (b) get approved, and (c) do their own search. This is far too much work. I second WoodenBuddha's suggestion that you put info about DeAngelo on a separate page so that people can view it without registering. For now, I am going to leave the dutchseduction.com link, but edit the text to make it less prominent. Also, I've reviewed the criticism section and it is way too POV, and lacks sources. For example:

  • "In particular, DeAngelo's aggressive marketing style has left relatively few objective information sources that refer to him critically." POV, needs source.

Comment: I'm laughing out loud, watching you guys trying to sanitize DeAngelo's WP article. If you want a source, just refer to this Talk Page! DutchSeduction 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Dude, don't jump to conclusions about my motives. That's not very nice. I happen to agree with you that DeAngelo's marketing style is aggressive. That doesn't change the fact that we need to cite a source for that claim. What is complicated about this?? I disagree that there are "few objective information sources that refer to him criticially," because I've seen plenty of criticism of his methods and marketing style. --SecondSight 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "Some sites go so far as to produce elaborate books and pamphlets about DeAngelo and the topic of seduction designed to portray both him and the concept favorably." Yet the copyright page of the pdf says that it cites DeAngelo without permission, so it hardly looks like the pdf is part of DeAngelo's marketing campaign. It simply looks like the author admires DeAngelo's work. Although the pdf does portray him favorably, it hardly seems to be its purpose, which is what the entry seems to imply.

Comment: Your very comments themselves are biased. DutchSeduction 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The burden is on YOU to show what exactly is the problem with the pdf. Maybe I read it too quickly, and missed the parts you have trouble with. I mainly remember that the pdf says on the copyright page that it is citing DeAngelo without permission, and that doesn't seem to be consistent with it being part of his marketing campaign. If you want to point to the specific parts of the pdf you find problematic, then you are welcome to do so, and perhaps I will change my assessment. --SecondSight 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
  • "While most of DeAngelo's infomation is generally considered useful, it is argued that DeAngelo does not give a complete seduction system in any one of his products. " Argued by who? Citation needed.
  • "Many in the community claim that DeAngelo is not known as a great seducer himself, but more of a promoter and marketeer." True. Though as far as I know, he has never claimed to be a great seducer. Also needs source.

Comment: Why are you trying to defend him so desperately? Cut it out already, it's embarassing. DutchSeduction 03:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Your trampling over Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:NPOV is embarassing. Why do you assume that I'm defending him because I ask you to cite sources for your criticisms of him? I AGREE with many of the criticisms of DeAngelo's methods and marketing tactics, so I have no motive to defend him. I do, however, have a motive to try to make the page as objective as possible, so I can't in good conscience let uncited POV criticisms stand even if I happen to agree with them personally. In contrast to your incredibly unfair assumptions about me, I have consistently criticized DeAngelo's methods on mASF and elsewhere. As members of the seduction community, I think it's our obligation to try to be extra-objective on community-related pages even though we may have strong opinions on these issues. --SecondSight 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm either removing or tagging these claims with citation needed. Other of the criticisms are fine, and I'm adding another source about the problems with C&F (e.g. backfiring). --SecondSight 22:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny that all self-serving statements about DeAngelo are added to the article without question, but every criticism is edited, censored and slapped with "citation needed." I would hate to add any references to Thundercatseductionlair.com or fastseduction.com, but every critical comment about DeAngelo you can imagine has been made there. There are no shortages of critical references, although not many nonprofit ones. DutchSeduction 03:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Please flag any self-serving statements you find in the article with [citation needed]. Gravix 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

DutchSeduction, why do you rag on me for asking you to cite sources? This is very bad faith of you. Instead, why not just include the sources you should have included in the first place? If you don't cite sources, then of course they are going to get slapped with "citation needed." Why does this surprise you? If there are POV self-serving statements about DeAngelo, the solution is to remove them or slap them with "citation needed." I think the various criticisms of DeAngelo are important to the article, but they need to be cited per Wikipedia:Verifiability of course, and you have no business attacking me for pointing this out. You are welcome to include the criticisms I deleted once you find sources for them. I agree that we should avoid Thundercat's, but perhaps you could include criticisms from FS.com, like the one I linked to (since FS.com is so prominent in the community, I think it's reasonable to cite it as evidence of what at least some members of the community think). Btw, if I was trying to censor criticism of DeAngelo, why would I include that link? Also, if I was just trying to censor you, I would not have bothered giving explanations of why I removed the sentences I did. The explanations were intended so you or other people would know how to improve them, and I thought this would be better than simply removing those sentences without explanation. Notice also that I have not argued that a link to dutchseduction.com is impermissible on the page (I simply think that you should put the cited info in a place on the site that can be accessed without registration, as a courtesy). --SecondSight 06:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I will see if someone can place the cited info in a place on the site that can be accessed without registration, although I'm sure that will take them some time to accomplish. There are a lot of critical discussions on DeAngelo and P&C on that site.

Thanks. And only one or two pages about P&C/DeAngelo would be necessary; if someone wants to see all of the discussions, they can register for the site. --SecondSight 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the time you've put into improving the various seduction pages. However, to explain my complaint against your approach, it seems that only the critical statements are being attacked while all of the adcruft-y sections of the article are allowed to stand as is. It is an interesting phenomenon that I have been observing since I first came to the page. Dive into the history of the page, and you'll see what I mean. DeAngelo obviously has a little army of adcruft meatpuppets at his call. I'm not saying that you are one of them, but you sometimes behave suspiciously similar to them!  ;^) DutchSeduction 07:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, I also deleted an adcruft link to DeAngelo products. I just made a couple of minor quick edits to other parts of the page besides the criticism section. As I said above, if you want to argue that some specific parts of the page are still adcruft for DeAngelo, you are welcome to do so, and perhaps I will back you up (for example, perhaps you mean the Double Your Dating section which details DeAngelo's products?). Also, the reason I targeted the criticism section was because it simply seemed to be to be the most uncited and POV part of the page. If there were blatantly pro-DeAngelo claims like "Many people in the seduction community think DeAngelo is a great seducer" (which is equivalent to the claim "Many in the community claim that DeAngelo is not known as a great seducer himself"), then I would have removed or tagged that claim also. You may be correct that only critical statements in the article have been attacked, and adcrufty statements have been allowed to remain; I don't know, because I only started editing the page relatively recently, and I have not looked at the history extensively yet. Still, any biased editing or meatpuppeting in the past is not my fault, so stop accusing me of trying to whitewash this page. If you think asking for citations for claims is "whitewashing," then you need to re-read WP:V and WP:NPOV. --SecondSight 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Now you're saying 'SecondSight' is a suspected meatpuppet? Sad.

Please explain how "Other organizations [1] have developed alternative methods such as "P&C" ("playful and confident") that are considered by some to be superior to DeAngelo's "cocky & funny" techniques." constitutes criticism of David DeAngelo?

Thanks, and look forward to your co-operation.

WoodenBuddha 14:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like criticism to me. Saying that playfulness and confidence is a better combination than C&F certainly sounds like criticism of C&F. I would prefer slightly different phrasing instead of the vague "considered by some to be superior." Considered by who? I would suggest something like: "Other organizations [2] have developed alternative methods such as "P&C" ("playful and confident") that they consider superior to DeAngelo's "cocky & funny" techniques." --SecondSight 21:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. DutchSeduction 07:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of this bit

>>Another weblog [12] states that DeAngelo's work, by commonly focusing on sex and physical intimacy as the goal, and by encouraging men to act unnaturally, actually contributes to retaining the "antiquated, gender-biased, courtship system". Writers at this blog encourage people to "be happy to be [themselves]," even if doing so leads to less romantic success with the opposite sex. [13]

Does this part constitute a relevant viewpoint in the context of the article? All seduction/pick up art material gets criticised by people who suggest "just being yourself". What is so special about this blog?

Besides, as a follower of Deangelo's stuff (however biased I obviously would be) I have to say that the idea that it makes people act unnaturally, and that you should "just be yourself", is blind ignorance. Cocky & funny is a way of flirting, and has about as much relevance to being yourself or not as does joking. I did it in some way before I ever read the book. Most of David Deangelo's work is about self-improvement, not acting unnaturally.

My point is, do viewpoints based on blind denial, never having understood what they are actually protesting, have value here? Gubby 11:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


  • I took a look at this site and have two differing thoughts on it. First, apparently, there are many writers, and the writer who disapproved of DeAngelo no longer writes for the blog. Thus, the latest posts have little to do with the seduction community and more to do with dating in general, and therefore they are not that relevant to this article.
  • On the other hand, I don't think that sole fact justifies the paragraph's removal, given that past content is still available for free. From many articles there it looks as if that author has indeed been exposed to DeAngelo's work, understands it, and disagrees with using it. "Blind ignorance" is a poor criticism, it would appear. My basis for this statement comes from an article where it's stated that the author believes that DeAngelo's teachings work, but that he simply chooses not to follow them. He believes that if nobody followed DeAngelo's books, then dating would be less of a "game" (that's a quote) and more of the personal interaction it should be.
  • This article has continued to move towards a positive tone for DeAngelo. While the wording of the paragraph mentioning the site may need to be clarified or changed, I do believe it constituted some valid criticism and should be retained in some form. --Quintin3265 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)


To quote H. L. Mencken: 'Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.'
As I see it, an encyclopaedia is for the purpose of fostering knowledge and understanding. If something that is considered integral to something else is frequently misunderstood and criticised on grounds of the misunderstanding, then surely this warrants inclusion and explanation thereof.
-- Sasuke Sarutobi 16:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The criticism was perfectly clear. This page is often the victim of DeAngelo's corps of marketeers. Why don't we just remove the whole page and put up an advertisement for DYD?

^) It's not like the poor guy is earning enough money or anything. DutchSeduction 11:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two new programmes

The two sites flagged (Dating After Divorce and Any Woman, Anywhere) are not registered to the same address as 'Double Your Dating' and 'Catch Her and Keep Her'.

You can check it yourselves:-
Entry for 'DoubleYourDating.com'
Entry for 'CatchHimandKeepHim.com'
Entry for 'AnyWomanAnywhere.com'
Entry for 'DatingAfterDivorce.com'

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 23:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the page looks fine to me. I'm not a marketeer, just a college student that was fortunate enough to come across this material. It's changed me and a few friends dating lives substantially, that whole "be yourself" crap is another way of saying "be happy with what you get." We exercise to get more fit, educate to get more knowledge, and this is the same in regards to being a better person to be around. David literally speaks out against the act of seducing, and doesn't condone it, that's an entirely different area than what he preaches. Don't even know why I'm posting this, I'm sure I'll just be labeled as a marketeer... -- Dan N.

[edit] Newsletter

"DeAngelo runs a newsletter, whose subscription numbers in the thousands[citation needed]. The success stories sent in by readers almost invariably rate David DeAngelo's material very highly, giving stories of their sexual lives being entirely turned around."

Well, duh. It is a newsletter exclusively for product promotion. Surprise, it has hundreds of testimonials of the product's success! I think this is another clip that makes this page look like an ad. -- Gravix 02:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


In the last chapter of Neil Strauss's book "The Game" he says that the Double Your Dating newsletters goes out to over 1 million subscribers.


His you newsletters have to be left in, they get sent out to a massive number of people and are one of the most famous aspects of him. Mathmo 15:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nice guy syndrome

Has anyone noticed that this page has been deleted? Even though this deletion discussion ame out keep? Is there any way to get the page back? Ppe42 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

  • There were three deletion attempts on this article, the first two of which failed to reach a consensus. The page you pointed to was the first. If you do some searching, you can probably find the latest deletion vote listed under Articles for Deletion from about two weeks ago.
  • The only way to "get back" the page would be to list the page for undeletion. Because the delete vote was nearly unanimous, however, the chances of gaining support for the undeletion would be slim. --Quintin3265 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Well ... bugger. I really think we needed that article. Ah well, maybe it can be resurrected at some future point. Meanwhile, I'll unlink the phrase. Ppe42 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propose Removal of Criticism from this Article

Real proposal: Request for complete revamping of entire article.

Flaws: Beliefs, Support, Terms, Advice, Double your Dating should be merged

Reason: The articles on their own are mostly non-notable even with alot of corrections. It fails to either present a big picture of who David is nor of the materials he is selling. The sub articles Beliefs, Support and Advice might as well describe any person giving out dating advice with a following.

Beliefs are too POV. How can any of us editors guarantee that we know who DeAngelo is? Even if there are people here who know him personally, how will they prove it?

"Even if there are people here who know him personally, how will they prove it?" <<< Who wrote this? Get serious. DeAngelo is a well-known individual, and has been interviewed by journalists as well as his students. There is no debate of this. DutchSeduction 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice is laughingly bad on it's own. The info there even when I added the bribe example is inferior to any 1 newsletter I read in the past. It just fails to present a clearer if not better summary of who this guy is supposed to be both positively and negatively. Proof of this is to compare it with the actual presentation of the Double your Dating website from the current form of the article. Even that site seems more clear cut and NPOV than this one. The positive aspects simply look like stubs and the negative criticisms seems tacked on and added there by editors who have agendas against DeAngelo.

Again, who wrote the above? Removing valid criticism of DeAngelo from his page, seems like POV sanitization of the article. There should be objectively presented pros and cons, which there are. DutchSeduction 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


Support seems like an ad for the guy. Is Wikipedia really the place for this? Alot of these can be easier obtained and more elaborately read by subscribers of the newsletter. I propose this info either gets moved to the Seduction Community as evidence of how notable DeAngelo is to the Seduction Community or be entirely removed to preserve NPOV.

I agree with the above. The article needs to be rewritten as most of it seems to be an ad for DeAngelo. DutchSeduction 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The Terms section is also laughingly bad. Only C&F is notable on it's own and it gets lumped with other terms as if they are equally prioritized by the person. Alot of the terms eventually revolve around C&F or explanations of human nature. I propose a redirect to Body Languages or Reverse Psychology to any of the terms that might match those descriptions.

The Double your Dating description reads like a dictionary. It doesn't even provide a brief summary to what might be included in the book. In fact, the advice section might even contain more about the book than the actual article about the book. Demystify indeed.

If anyone disagrees with the suggestion, I propose simply the removal of the criticism section.

Reason: The portion is critical of C&F rather than DeAngelo. Editors must make up their minds whether C&F is notable enough to have it's sub section or not. Otherwise P&C is non-notable either and therefore there is no major criticism.

Above remark isn't logical. C&F is what DeAngelo made his career on, remains his best known product. It's arguably the most notable aspect of DeAngelo's empire. As such, DeAngelo's reputation is based on it, and the technique has many fans and detractors. DutchSeduction 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I do agree with the anonymous poster that P&C is non-notable (sorry, DutchSeduction!). However, criticism of C&F is notable, so I'm fine with leaving it in until we can get a better source that is critical of C&F (preferably a reliable secondary source). --SecondSight 21:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Sign your comments please. DutchSeduction 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Second Sight, this article is about 99% adcruft, self-serving commercial nonsense put together by DeAngelo marketeers. NPOV information of value and noncommercial criticism is desperataely needed here. DutchSeduction 14:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommended order for learning from material

The following personal recommendation is a grouped list of David DeAngelo's material in the order it should be learnt from for maximal gain:

  • Double Your Dating (ebook)
  • Double Your Dating (audio/video)
  • On Being A Man (audio/video)
  • Deep Inner Game (audio/video)
  • Mastery With Women & Dating (audio/video)
  • Approaching Women (audio/video)
  • Body Language (audio/video)
  • Meeting Women in Bars & Clubs (audio/video)
  • Ask Me Anything Vol. 2 - Meeting Women in Bars & Clubs (audio/video)
  • Meeting Women Online (audio/video)
  • Cocky Comedy (audio/video)
  • Sexual Communication (audio/video)
  • Ask Me Anything Vol. 1 - Sexual Communication (audio/video)
  • Power Sexuality (audio/video)
  • Advanced Series (audio/video)
  • 77 Laws (audio/video)

Please update the list above if you have a good reason for doing so. Indicate each sort-order update with a comment below. Sort-order updates without suitable explanatory comments will be reverted. Insertions of new items into the list do not have to be commented. This is probably not encyclopedic material, unless it is cited somewhere, but is useful nonetheless. Thanks. --Amit 18:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

  • Deleted "Ask Me Anything", and replaced it with separate entries for its two volumes, as they correspond to different subject matters. --Amit 20:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link to unofficial message board

The user Inxs001 has been blocked for linkspamming this page. See [[1]] for details. --DutchSeduction

The item in question is: Students of David DeAngelo Message Board --Amit 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I wish to return the link for the message board to the 'External Links' section, as I believe that it is fair game. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 23:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem with the above. I've seen several articles on Wikipedia with a link to a specialized forum web site. If the user DutchSeduction does not explain his concerns with regards to this, I think it could be reentered. --Amit 00:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The link is completely unnecessary, not notable and adds nothing. The "students" message board is nothing more than additional linkspam. DutchSeduction 17:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Sasuke, is it possible to have the forum configured so that posts are viewable without having to sign up and login? By doing so, the forum will possibly directly and immediately benefit users who browse in from Wikipedia, rather than use Wikipedia only as a means of growth. In my opinion, the forum should provide free and useful information before it can be posted as a link here. --Amit 18:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the top two boards ('General' and 'Introduce Yourself') can be viewed by guests. The others require registration. I don't know exactly, though, since I'm not actually a member myself.
I simply thought it might be useful, since it pertains to the subject of this article. However, I understand DutchSeduction's position entirely: the board has a membership of 255, compared to DeAngelo's mailing list which supposedly reaches a million addresses. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 23:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This has become a revert war now, which is not beneficial to Wikipedia; we should be focusing on what we can add to the article, not what we need to take away. That said, I can see three solutions:

  • Closing the article to edits by new or unregistered users. As much as I hate to see that ugly template at the top, and including the possible detriment of blocking someone who would otherwise make positive changes, it may be one of the few ways of stopping this ridiculous carry-on.
  • Blocking the offending user(s). However, if they can cycle their IP, then this would be pointless, as it would also be if they recruit others into their crusade (which may be all the more 'justified' by blocking them).
  • Just going over to the board and telling them to shut up.

Personally, I'm favouring the last option, although I am open to suggestions. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 13:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is another option, although not a perfect one either. It requires a bot checking this article perhaps every ten minutes, and reversing spam. One of the existing Wikipedia antispam bots would have to be configured to revert anything containing the forum link, etc. except if it's under External links. I do think a link to the forum wouldn't hurt under a subsection within External links titled Forums. --Amit 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the link to a subsection within External links titled Forums. I think it doesn't hurt to have a few forum links there. Forums are after all an important means of learning more from each other. --Amit 06:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Promotional nature

This reads like promotional material, the "criticism" is fatuous. The "references" are mostly anecdotal. The tone seems designed to promote in a low key manner. This guy/firm clearly has it's fans, and they are clearly writing here. It's POV.

I also think this is more promotional than something of encyclopedic value. What comes next, an article about Chuck Norris "total gym"? Wikipedia is looking more and more like yellow pages, which was not supposed to be. I've seen more relevant articles being deleted for less. Which is the thing that we put between {{ }} to suggest for deletion?
Instead, how about pointing to actual passages in the article that you find objectional, and (a) correct them yourself, or (b) describe what is wrong with them so other editors can make improvements? And actually, there would be nothing wrong with a Chuck Norris "total gym" article as long as it was verifiable and written from a neutral point of view. --SecondSight 07:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that DeAngelo is a brilliantly successful internet marketeer. There are a lot of boy-fans writing here, but also members of DeAngelo's marketing team. DeAngelo is a huge industry churning out seduction advice like junk food. DutchSeduction 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/v/Talk%7EDavid_DeAngelo_10f9.html"